In re the Estate of Proto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Proto

245 A.D.2d 520, 666 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13245

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 22, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 520 (In re the Estate of Proto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Proto, 245 A.D.2d 520, 666 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA § 2103 to discover property withheld from the decedent’s estate, Phyllis Lanza appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Scholnick, S.), dated December 4, 1996, which, inter alia, directed that the decedent’s one-half interest in certain real property be returned by her to the decedent’s estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petitioner was not prohibited by the doctrine of “unclean hands” from seeking to have the decedent’s one-half interest in the property at issue reconveyed by the appellant to the decedent’s estate (cf., Pattison v Pattison, 301 NY 65; Lagonegro v Lagonegro, 187 AD2d 490; Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358).

[521]*521The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA § 2103 to discover property withheld from the decedent’s estate, Phyllis Lanza appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Scholnick, S.), dated December 4, 1996, which, inter alia, directed that the decedent’s one-half interest in certain real property be returned by her to the decedent’s estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petitioner was not prohibited by the doctrine of “unclean hands” from seeking to have the decedent’s one-half interest in the property at issue reconveyed by the appellant to the decedent’s estate (cf., Pattison v Pattison, 301 NY 65; Lagonegro v Lagonegro, 187 AD2d 490; Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358).

[521]*521The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 520, 666 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-proto-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack